CAF Learning lab on the content of the model. Patrick STAES Nick THIJS

Transcription

1 8th European CAF Users Event Leading Quality into the Future 12 April 2018, Sofia, Bulgaria CAF 2020 Learning lab on the content of the model Patrick STAES Nick THIJS

2 Flow of the session 1. Setting the scene Short intro presentation on changes in the CAF Collected input from the participants 3. Participants discussions 2

3 1. Setting the scene Short intro presentation on changes in the CAF2013 3

4 Focus points of the CAF 2013 Citizens customers involvement as co-designers, codecision makers, co-producers and co-evaluators Processes: focus on core-processes in criterion 5, management processes in criteria 1 and 2 and supporting processes in criteria 3 and 4. Coordination of processes within the organisation and with other relevant organisations, 4

5 Focus points of the CAF 2013 Performance orientation, strengthening perception and performance measurements in the results criteria Innovation supported by leadership Social responsibility 5

6 2. Collected input from the participants 6

7 Consensus on keeping the general structure (criteria) Introduce new issues in/under the subcriteria 1. Examples 2. Rephrase existing sub criteria 3. Replace existing sub criteria 4. Introduce new sub criteria Suggested topics: communication, public value, agility, new ways of working, digitisation 7

8 Introduce good practices Linkages / cause-effect Social responsibility (separate OR cross cutting?) EU / national reform => strategy development PEF link 8

9 3. Participants discussions 9

10 Criterion 1: Leadership 10

11 Criterion 2: Strategy & Planning 11

12 Criterion 3: People 12

13 Criterion 4: Partnerships & Ressources 13

14 Criterion 5: Processes 14

15 8th European CAF Users Event Leading Quality into the Future 12 April 2018, Sofia, Bulgaria CAF 2020 Learning lab on the content of the guidelines/process CAF implementation Patrick STAES Nick THIJS

16 Flow of the session 1. Short intro presentation by the National Social Security Institute. Bulgaria (BG). 2. Collected input from the participants 3. Participants discussions 16

17 1. Short intro presentation by the National Social Security Institute. Bulgaria (BG). 17

18 8th European CAF Users Event Leading Quality into the Future 12 April 2018, Sofia, Bulgaria Self-assessment through applying the quality management model CAF in the National Social Security Institute (NSSI) of the Republic of Bulgaria in the period in 2017 National Social Security Institute of the Republic of Bulgaria Zornitsa Tsekova 18

19 Outline 1. Background and context of the organisation 2. Background of the case 3. Process/dynamics 4. Results/outcome 5. Lessons learned & key recommendations 19

20 1. Background & Context of the organisation National Social Security Institute short presentation Public sector organization at national level Manages the state public social insurance in Bulgaria Pays all types of pensions Pays all types of sickness, maternity, employment injury and occupational disease benefits Pays all types of unemployment benefits Competent institution regarding the implementation of the EU regulations in the field of social security schemes coordination 20

21 1. Background & Context of the organisation National Social Security Institute in numbers Manages more than BGN 11 bln. (more than EUR 5 bln.) Pays the pensions of about 2.2 mln. pensioners Pays the benefits of more than 1.7 mln. beneficiaries Staff of people Headquarters (12 directorates) plus 28 territorial branches 21

22 2. Background of the case Specific conditions at the beginning of the project Institution with many functions and complex structure Various and sophisticated internal and external interactions No experience in applying quality management systems Insufficient experience regarding CAF in Bulgaria in general CAF project in the NSSI main objectives and characteristics Higher effectiveness and efficiency Inside look covering all aspects of management Introducing a mechanisms aiming at continuous improvement Higher satisfaction with the quality of provided services Establishing a sense of ownership of the personnel over the organizational aims and values Part of the first wave for introducing the CAF in Bulgaria following the Government Strategy for Development of the State Administration

23 2. Background of the case Focus: Strategic, fundamental changes which will result in significant improvements both of internal process and external perspective: Development of the NSSI s organizational structure Partnership development Personnel development Embedding corporate social responsibility in the organizational strategy Better link between the strategy and results achieved Main, strategic actions Functional analysis of the whole organization Developing a comprehensive partnership management policy Introducing an innovation impact assessment Introducing a Balanced Scorecard as a tool for evidence-based strategic planning and management Defining the change management roles within the organization Developing a comprehensive personnel development policy 23

24 3. Process/dynamics Main challenges Applying the CAF within all organizational units Insufficient experience in quality management system application What will the staff s attitudes towards the project be Are the employees willing to provide the senior management an objective feedback Is the senior management willing to address the staff s assessments and recommendations Is the senior management willing to undertake strategic changes Is it possible to achieve consensus (two self-assessment groups with 15 members each) Time framework 2015 (November, December) 2016 Proposal Support from the senior management Managerial decision Agreement with IPA Introduction of the model to the senior management 2017 (January October) Establishment of two working groups Training Selfassessment Two reports Consolidated report Action Plan 24

25 3. Process/dynamics Results achieved by the two working groups Over 85 % coincidence of the areas of improvement (different definitions, similar meaning) Consensus achieved at a joint meeting Prioritization of measures EIPA methodology on prioritization applied within the CAF model introduction in Bulgaria project Some weaknesses have been identified MAIN PROBLEM: fundamental, strategic measures remain out of the scope of the Action Plan. Without these measures, all other actions will have limited influence and will not lead to significant improvements 25

26 3. Process/dynamics Our practice of prioritization Consolidated selfassessment report Casual relationships between subcriteria with lower scores Defining four key themes Prioritization of measures according to the EIPA methodology Ensuring compliance between measures and defined key themes and preparing an action plan Fixing deadlines, responsible staff members and performance indicators Plenary session in order to achieve consensus on the measures Action plan containing 15 measures, including 10 with strategic importance MAIN ADVANTAGE: we put the emphasis on a few measures with strategic importance which will establish the base of the successful implementation of all other measures for improvement 26

27 3. Process/dynamics Main actors Project manager Senior management Line managers Territorial branch directors Self-assessment working groups Self-assessment working group leader Task force for preparation of an Action Plan 9 staff members (8 representing SAG) External consultant Bulgarian Institute for Public Administration (IPA) Roles and responsibilities Provides overall guidance and support at all stages Makes the decisions to introduce the CAF. Demonstrates support for the project. Approves the consolidated version of the report and plan for improvement. Exercises monitoring Assist in gathering evidence Directly participate in the self-assessment process Propose members of the self-assessment working groups Participate in self-assessment Perform the self-assessment Reach consensus within and between the working groups Coordinate work within the groups. Summarize results. They guide and promote consensus. Coordinate efforts in drafting reports Prioritizes measures for improvement. Achieves consensus on performance indicators, responsible units and deadlines Carries out training for self-assessment working groups Supports the whole process of self-assessment Supports the administration during the implementation of the CAF Provides tailored training. Provides feedback on the CAF implementation process 27

28 4. Results/outcome Main characteristics Early stage of implementation of the measures for improvement Strategic character of the measures. Verifiable results require sufficient time Achieved results Approved report Approved Action Plan Influence on the strategic concept on the NSSI management Key measures from the Action Plan are part of the NSSI Strategy and 2018 Operational Plan Expected results Higher satisfaction with the services provided Achieving higher efficiency by better planning and measuring the impact of innovations Better performance by higher staff motivation Better effectiveness and efficiency of the main processes (process-oriented approach and Balanced Scorecards) 28

29 4. Results/outcome Next steps Monitoring every four months Periodic reporting to the senior management Next self-assessment (two years after the initial introduction) Project sustainability Monitoring provides the senior management with information on the process of implementation of the measures for improvement and is a prerequisite for meeting the deadlines determined in the Action Plan The planned forthcoming self-assessment ensures the implementation of the Plan-Do- Check-Act (PDCA) 29

30 5. Lessons learned & key recommendations The model is not a dogma. It is sufficiently flexible and can be adapted. We applied a different approach in the process of prioritization of measures The scope is not an obstacle. Our first self-assessment covered the whole organization Consensus can be reached. We established two self-assessment working groups, each with 15 members. It was not difficult to reach consensus within and between the groups The model is reliable. Its application leads to similar results in similar conditions. The two self-assessment groups worked independently but produced similar results The staff members can be critical towards the senior management. The consolidated report consist of 138 areas of improvement and 117 measures WORRIES ARE GREATER THAN THE REAL DIFFICULTIES! 30

31 5. Lessons learned & key recommendations Critical success factors Support by the senior management Good communication between the actors involved in the self-assessment. We created an internal communication tool as a part of the NSSI intranet platform Well-designed selection process and easy access to evidence Well-chosen composition of working groups Participation in the self-assessment groups on а voluntary basis Well-selected working group leaders Good theoretical knowledge of the participants in the working groups Sufficient time and supporting working environment Continuous monitoring and feedback on the implementation of the measures 31

32 5. Lessons learned & key recommendations Key recommendations To be cautious about the results of models which are based on numerical assessments. In certain conditions (depending on the organizational maturity level) they could be misleading It needs to be clearly stated that organizations could be creative throughout the prioritization process 32

33 Questions 33

34 Contact details Name: Zornitsa Tsekova Phone: /

35 2. Collected input from the participants 35

36 A. More guidance Need for templates - Team leader profile - Communication plan - Self-assessment worksheet - Prioritization methodologies - Improvement plan(ning)/monitoring - benchlearning PEF link 36

37 B. Stronger focus in the process Leadership engagement Necessary time for SAG members Ongoing monitoring (role for SAG) Step 9: implementation AND MONITORING Intermediate quick scan? Flexible approach (?) 37

38 C. Methodological issues translation to the organisation - Who? - When? (between training and SA) - How deltailed? External stakeholders IN self-assessment Need for collecting evidence (pro-active)? Scoring: - More info - Need?! Adaptation?! 38

39 3. Participants discussions 39

40 Issues to discuss further 1. Management involvement / engagement 2. Stakeholders IN Self-assessment 3. Collecting evidence 4. Scoring 5. Translation 6. Flexible approach 40

41 8th European CAF Users Event Leading Quality into the Future 12 April 2018, Sofia, Bulgaria CAF 2020 Learning lab on PEF Patrick STAES Nick THIJS

42 Flow of the session 1. Setting the scene Short intro presentation on the PEF 2. Introduction: State Treasury & City of Hyvinkää. Finland (FI). 3. Collected input from the participants 4. Participants discussions 42

43 1. Setting the scene: Short intro presentation on the PEF 43

44 Overview 1. Aims of the Feedback Procedure 2. General principles 3. The 3 pillars: the What of the feedback 4. Steps in the feedback procedure 44

45 1. Aims of the CAF External Feedback Procedure Support the quality of the CAF implementation and its impact on the organisation. Support and renew enthusiasm in the organisation for continuous improvement. Reward organisations that started the journey on continuous improvement toward excellence in an effective way, without judging their obtained level of excellence. 45

46 2. The general principles The CAF External Feedback Procedure is a common European framework, to be implemented according to the national contexts on a voluntary basis. The CAF External Feedback Procedure leads to the label of Effective CAF User (ECU) for 2 years, not the recognition or accreditation of an excellent organisation. The CAF External Feedback Procedure is build upon 3 pillars. 46

47 3. The different pillars 47

48 Different steps in the CAF & the Pillars Phase 1 The start of the CAF journey Step 1: Decide how to organise and plan the self-assessment Step 2: Communicate the self-assessment project Phase 2 Self-Assessment Process Step 3: Compose one or more self-assessment groups Step 4: Organise training Step 5: Undertake the self-assessment Step 6: Draw up a report describing the results of self-assessment PILLAR 1 Phase 3 Improvement plan/ prioritisation Step 7: Draft an improvement plan, based on the accepted self-assessment report Step 8: Communicate the improvement plan Step 9 Implement the improvement Plan Step 10: Plan next self-assessment PILLAR 2 48

49 Pillar 3 Towards a TQM culture 49

50 Steps in CAF External Feedback Procedure CAF and Application CAF Self Assessment and SA Report 6-12 months later application to the National Organiser Self assessment on 3 pillars Organisation carries out self-assessment on the 3 pillars CAF External Feedback Actors Document analysis by CAF External Feedback Actors Site visit by team of CAF External Feedback Actors Feedback and ECU Label The applicant organisation receives feed back If positive on 3 pillars: Effective CAF User Label 50

51 2. Introduction: State Treasury & City of Hyvinkää. Finland (FI). 51

52 8th European CAF Users Event Leading Quality into the Future 12 April 2018, Sofia, Bulgaria Learning together during the QualityJourney External Feedback Procedure of City of Kuopio State Treasury, Aila Särmälä, National Organizer City of Hyvinkää, Jaana Ilomäki, Head of FAs

53 Outline 1. Background and context of the organizations 2. Background of the case 3. Process/dynamics 4. Results/outcome 5. Lessons learned & key recommendations 53

54 1. Background & Context of the organisations (1/3) State Treasury, the national organizer City of Kuopio, Urban Environment, Effective CAF User City of Hyvinkää, employer of the head of FAs Team Leader The Finnish Local Government Act of 2015 The Finnish municipalities shall strive to advance the well-being of their residents and to promote sustainable development on a local basis. Basic public services arranged by municipalities include social welfare, health care, education and culture, technical and environmental services 54

55 1. Background & Context of the organisation (2/3) State Treasury, Ministry of Finance s most important partner wiht regard to the implementation of central government steering Key processes - Financing activities, supporting financial management, shared financial administration and its development - Supporting personnel management, shared personnel administration and its development, PEF National Organizer - Services for citizens and communities

56 1. Background & Context of the organisation (3/3) City of Kuopio in brief Centre of Eastern Finland 9th largest city in Finland, approx. 118,000 inhabitants An urban environment of strong growth and bold development An active university city focusing on well-being, health and security competence A good environment for children to grow up 56

57 2. Background of the case City of Kuopio, Urban Environment Department is the first Effective CAF User Label applicant organization in Finland The national organizer, State Treasury arrange training and invite an external feedback actors team (altogether 6 actors). The national organizer, the Feedback Actors Team and City of Kuopio collected and documented experiences and lessons learnt during the self-assessments and external feedback procedure. 57

58 3. Process/dynamics Self-assessment processes in Kuopio CAF joint project for management and staff External feedback process Self-assessment 01-03/2017, application and site visit 10/2017, feedback report and ECU label in the beginning of November A common challenge of the Finnish CAF users, as well as at European level, is to make the model, assessment tools and learning from each other, bench learning more visible. That is why we want to share these experiences with you. 58

59 4. Learning results/outcome Participation as a key success factor, staff involvement Recognition of key partnerships with citizens, customers and stakeholders and their participation in the assessment process in the future Quality of data and documentation of self-assessments A complex operational environment of public sector organizations requires management of information, knowledge and technologies. Linkage between the CAF Model assessment results and strategic planning process of the organization 59

60 5. Lessons learned & key recommendations (1/2) Key recommendations: - Partnerships and resources: key partnership relations with citizens and customers, involvement of partners in PEF - People: involvement of staff, open dialogue and empowerment are key success factors in PEF - Strategy: planning, implementation, reviewing modernization and innovation, taking into account stakeholders and available resources, gathering information relating to present and future needs of customers and stakeholders - Leadership: motivation and support the people in the organization and act as a role model 60

61 5. Lessons learned & key recommendations (2/2) Key recommendations: - Pillar 3 is number 1 - Principles of Excellence should be the heart of PEF - Looking forward instead of looking backwards - CAF + PEF excellent tools for development digital, agility assessment tools are needed to develop attractiveness - An organization can use PEF as external internal assessment tool (bench learning between different departments) - It is important to find the place for CAF Model among other assessment and audit tools and awards (e.g. EPSA) 61

62 Questions 62

63 Contact details Add contact details here: Name: Aila Särmälä / Jaana Ilomäki aila.sarmala@valtiokonttori.fi / jaana.m.ilomaki@hyvinkaa.fi Phone: / Website: / 63

64 3. Collected input from the participants 64

65 Importance of oral feedback Follow-up of the feedback report Label for 3 years Benchlearning on PEF - Peer review - EFAC s & ECU s - PEF Event Pillar 3! 65

66 4. Participants discussions 66